October 2, 2012

After Warren listed the instances in which Brown voted against Democratic-backed bills, a back-and-forth ensued, as the senator tried to respond with a defense of his record. His line brought him some boos. Brown is pitching himself as the likable candidate in this race. Lines like this one could cut against that image he has carefully crafted.

That's WaPo's Sean Sullivan, spinning Brown's effective quip. Boos? I heard cheering. [ADDED: That is, a kind of "ooh!" that sounds to me like appreciation.] The worst thing to me about the clip, which you should watch for yourself, is that Brown lets it show that he's pleased that he got off the funny, telling alternative to "Let me finish" or "I didn't interrupt you, now, please don't interrupt me."

But let's talk about likeability. (Note: I prefer the spelling "likeable" to "likable," even when the candidate seems lickable.) Brown found a memorable, amusing way to cut off an interruption, which made him look good, at least to some people. The key is to look good specifically to those people who are not already strongly against him or for him. Now, the subtlety here is that the man cut off the woman, and he did it in a way that called attention to her position as a teacher, and that's a bit like calling her a schoolmarm, except that we know she's a Harvard law professor, and thus a powerful, elite sort of professor who exercises power in a setting that is traditionally male. She wields masculine power and presumes to control and channel the speech of less powerful males. That's the image of the law school classroom, as depicted — talk about memorable! — in the movie "The Paper Chase."

Now, nearly everyone watching that iconic scene — just linked — in "The Paper Chase," identifies with "Mr. Hart," the student, who resists the control of the imperious lawprof Prof. Kingsfield. And that's how Scott Brown positioned himself, making him a man of the people and her a member of the entitled elite.

Now, the subtlety here is that the man cut off the woman, and he did it in a way that called attention to her position as a teacher, and that's a big like calling her a schoolmarm, except that we know she's a Harvard law professor, and thus a powerful, elite sort of professor who exercises power in a setting that is traditionally male. She wields masculine power and presumes to control and channel the speech of less powerful males.

That strikes me as anachronistic and paleo-feministic. Women are already a majority of college students, and will soon become a majority of law school students (it's apparently now about 50/50). The law school faculty, with many notable exceptions, is getting more feminine. Do you really think "traditionally male", "masculine power", and like phrases are accurate? Or are you just being sarcastic?

1) Moderator David Gregory is a tool and should not host a debate again. He was much more agressive with Brown than Warren, and he was poor in general with handling the debate.

2) Brown overall was better in the debate. But his one stumble was his answer to DG's question about his favorite Supreme Court justice, answering Scalia. The audience boos and then he throws out a few more names. Warren answered with Kagan (ugh).

The blonde professor lady has this right- horny middle age women are an extremely important voting demographic in Massachusetts. Any male Kennedy clan member walks down the sidewalk you have to duck and cover to avoid all the Spanx snapping off any woman over 35 within two blocks. Brown is fortunate he can tap into that group, so to speak.

Althouse: The worst thing to me about the clip, which you should watch for yourself, is that Brown lets it show that he's pleased that he got off the funny...

He seemed to smile at eliciting the groans of the highly partisan crowd. On C-SPAN it sounded to me like Brown was being heckled fairly regularly throughout the debate by a shrill woman in the audience.

Meanwhile, Brown missed a great opportunity when David Gregory asked him if he questioned Warren's scholarship.

Even if Brown didn't charge academic or "scientific misconduct", per se, the history of bias does reveal Warren's slant and the fact she's an ideologue who wouldn't view an issue objectively as a senator. This is the exact contrast Brown has been trying to develop with Warren, presenting himself as the independent thinker.

Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.

Brent@9:03 nails it. Warren is the PERFECT example of the party apparatchik; a member in good standing of the Nomenklatura. She would have fit right in, perfectly, seamlessly, in Stalin's Soviet Union in, say, the Ministry of Education...smart enough to be "acceptable" to their Western counterparts, but enough of an ideological fervent true-believer to willing toe-the-line and carry out ANY inane proposal/policy the Party dictates however gruesome the methods needed..

In our middle class outer suburb of Boston, the Brown signs slightly outnumber the Warren signs. Both vastly outnumber Obama and Romney signs, which are about equal with each other, maybe Romney slightly ahead.

Sullivan tryin' to sell shit as shinola...that's how we got Zero as a president now.(and yes the brown colored allusion WAS intentional)

Red diaper doper babies can't handle the truth.

Ps,

I heard gasps, murmurs, laughs. Didn't hear no boo's. None. But then I have integrity, not a journalist.

Joournalist is going to quickly surpass used car salesman as the second least trusted person, with congress critters still firmly affixed at number 1 at being number 2.(just all sort of fecal allusions today)

Maybe I should have posted in the pig eats man thread...target rich enviroment.

But, yeah, the establishment media types will try to portray the Romster the same way as the WaPo did Brown if he gets off a good one.

Especially if it gets under Choom's skin.

Anyone else getting to the point where they can't bring themselves to watch the first debate? I'm looking forward to reading the text and watching video of the highlights, but to actually sit down and watch? Don't know if I can bring myself to do it this time...and I watched every Obama/Hillary debate televised.

Now, the Biden/Ryan debate? Pass the popcorn and get the shot glasses ready.

Scott Brown is marching in lockstep with the Rush-Romney-Ryan war on women. He's actually making clear his intention to beat her in the election.

"Beat," see? Do you hear the dog whistle? I predict a Super-Bowl incidence of domestic violence unless this guy dials down the rhetoric. In fact, he should just stop lying and agree that she's the better candidate.

"If being an active Nat'l. Guard member for 30 years (currently a colonel) makes you elite, then yeah, I guess he's elite."

-- How about being a Senator? Note: Brown is -also- a lawyer (from Boston College, if Wiki is right.) So, yeah. Pretty elite. This was two equals sparring, not the little person taking on the big one. Brown still came off better in the exchange, but I just don't see the David v Goliath feel.

cubanbob- I live in Amherst- (Dane Co East) Brown signs are thin on the ground. The only Brown bumper sticker I've seen is on my golf/hockey buddy's truck. (I don't have one- as a public school teacher I have this quaint notion that I shouldn't politic in school). Lots of Brown signs in south Worcester County, where I work, though. I'd guess Granny'll win Amherst 90-10, but lose statewide.

"But, she's a woman, and Ann is a woman and Ann votes emotionally as she has spent the last 4 days telling us."

If you were more rational than emotional, you would have done a much better job of reading what I actually wrote. Shame on you for getting the point so very wrong. But you probably have preening pride in your understanding, which you think you look good parading here in an imperious style.

Fictional law student James Hart never tried to resist "the control of the imperious lawprof Prof. Kingsfield" in either the book, movie, or TV versions of "The Paper Chase."

He started off, as a 1L, by being mystified and intimidated. At the top of the story arc, he was publicly humiliated by Kingsfield: the famous scene in which Kingsfield calls him to the front of the class and says, "Here's a dime, Mr. Hart. Call your mother and tell her there are serious doubts that you will ever become a lawyer." (Or something close to that; going from memory here, not imdb.com.) Hart does not throw the dime back in Kingsfield's face, but slinks away. And then Hart suddenly "gets it": he suddenly understands the majesty and the awe of the law and Prof. Kingsfield's place in its hierarchy, whereupon Hart becomes the top student in the class and Kingsfield's research assistant, favored student protege, and top admirer.

Someone at an MBA class at UCB asked the professor whether women do as well in negotiations. She said the most recent studies show they do as well, but their likeability is much lower which can effect future negotiations indirectly. IOW, the guys could be much more aggressive or passive and would still be perceived as likable. The women had a much more narrow perceptual sweet spot they had to hit.

Interesting that you'd think of "Paper Chase." The dean of Harvard law marked the 40th anniversary of "The Paper Chase" last week, with a discussion with the author, which led a group of anonymous bloggers at the school to run a poll on whether or not one of Warren's main defenders, Larry Tribe, is the "Anti-Kingsfield" of the post-modern "Paper Chase," borrowing an idea from Instapundit. More here and here:

-- How about being a Senator? Note: Brown is -also- a lawyer (from Boston College, if Wiki is right.) So, yeah. Pretty elite. This was two equals sparring, not the little person taking on the big one. Brown still came off better in the exchange, but I just don't see the David v Goliath feel.

So you have a story and you're sticking to it. Brown has only been a Senator for a couple of years because he came out of nowhere to win a special election for Teddy K's vacated seat. (The special election was a result of a Democrat-sponsored law to take the appointee power away from the governor; they did this prior to 2004 in case Kerry won the prez and the incumbent Repub guv, who happened to be Mitt Romney, would've appointed a Repub to the Senate. I've never enjoyed such a political petard-hoisting as I did with Brown's win.)

So you seem to think they are equal elites. Brown didn't live in a shoebox, but he doesn't have anywhere near the pedigree of Harvard law prof Warren. Also, are you familiar with Mass politics? Do you understand that a Republican Senator is unheard of there? His win in the special election was the equivalent of the Canadian army securing Normandy beach on D-Day in WWII. You might think he fits some sort of elite label, but he's not the one attending the salons and soirees in the Back Bay and Nantucket. Continuing with the Canadian Army in Occupied Europe, this election is him precariously holding the beachhead while also trying to advance inland a few miles. Such is the landscape of Massachusetts politics. The Dems have a stranglehold on it the way the Axis Powers did on Europe circa 1942.